Talk:Persecution of Christians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

syria[edit]

there is a lot going on in syria now. all proven and documented. shouldnt we include that in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.197.162.114 (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian rebels certainly have been involved in massacres and violence against Christians. You should certainly add something about that with a valid source. The Mummy (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Splitting[edit]

Article is too long?[edit]

Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject.

I would agree that there should be a separate article for the historical context and one for the 20th Century contemporary era. This would make navigating the article more user friendly.

Nemogbr (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC) --Nemogbr (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if a separate article solely for contemporary examples is necessarily appropriate because the article as it is already places too much undue weight on single incidents whose newsworthiness past a single day is questionable. If these were trimmed down, the article length might possibly decrease to a reasonable length without a split being required. Munci (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


I have noticed that the individual incidents are included, but there are advantages to having a contemporary article, as opposed to lumping it together with the whole history of the religion. I do not think the Roman era and the European Middle-ages are valid alongside the last couple of centuries.

It becomes too bulky. Nemogbr (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please split the article[edit]

Some time ago the article was tagged as being too long, and a year ago the proposition was made to split off the section on "Current situation (1989 to present)". Can we please proceed with this and convert the "Current situation.." section into "Contemporay persecution of Christians" or equivalent? Ekem (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Present" needs a definition. If that is "2010" fine. But precision is necessary. "Current" is too vague and changes with time. Student7 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Splitting off is a good idea. But the title is important. I find that using the words "Current" or "Contemporary" are just an excuse to delete less modern history (and these are abused). The title of the new article should be "Persecution of Christians by Country" which should be a list. Countries should have their own articles and linked back to the list according to the following examples: "Persecution of Christians in Egypt" and "Persecution of Christians in Turkey". These can be linked back to the list article which in turn is linked back to the Persecution of Christians article. In summary they could be nested like this:
Persecution of Christians
Persecution of Christians by Country
Persecution of Christians in Eqypt
Persecution of Christians in Pakistan
Persecution of Christians in Turkey  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought about using Freedom of Religion in SpecificCountry instead of Persecution of Christians in SpecificCountry, however, that excludes persecution that is not inclusive to Freedom of Religion (notably, discrimination is generally excluded, as is Freedom of Movement, and many other freedoms and rights.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 14:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we want an "outline" per se.
We need to split it off by section IMO. If editors are not happy with the current subsections, I think they should reorganize them here to their satisfaction. Then move them. In either event, this will still be the main article and a summary, however short, will remain along with a {{main|Persecution of Christians in X}}. Student7 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarity on split[edit]

I am removing the existing tags as stale as they are over a year old. It's not clear from the Split request tag, nor from the above discussions, what form of split is being proposed, nor if there is a clear consensus. The article is 78 kB readable prose size, which is at the recommended size for splitting, per WP:SIZESPLIT, though, by the nature of the topic, a large article size might be appropriate, so size alone may not be a justification. I note as I glance down the article, that there are already many sub-articles - Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, Persecution of Christians in the New Testament, Diocletianic Persecution, Anti-Catholicism, Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union, etc, etc, so again, it is not clear what extra form of splitting might be required. There has been a call for splitting off the modern section from the rest of the article, and if that is the consensus, then either that should be actioned, or a specific Split request tag placed on the article in the appropriate place, and a rationale given here for what is proposed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source?[edit]

Is this source really reliable? It is written by the deputy secretary general of this organization. I'm sure the base material of its assertion is true, but I think the source has added a lot of POV and likely some exagerration as well.Bless sins (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Christians and persecution[edit]

I believe the article could also do with a link about Christians persecuting non-Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.247.16 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, if anything, and equal opportunity reporter. See template at the end of the article "Religious persecution and religious discrimination." This covers everybody persecuting every other religion. Student7 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, Christianity and violence. Student7 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Boundaries.[edit]

Persecution of people who just happen to be Christian doesn't count, particularly if they were clearly persecuted for an unrelated reason, such as race. I'm not sure that we should count persecution of Christians by Christians over internecine issues, either. That's more like Infighting among Christians. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Does Israel persecute Christians? Or significantly discriminate against them?[edit]

A Christian friend recently returned from Israel and told me that Israel persecutes Christians by severe discrimination against them including refusal to issue passports.

When I Google the words: Israel persecution of Christians I get a number of hits including from 60 minutes which has an episode on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf1z4oHygPo I haven't watched it but it seems it is a debate about whether the assertion is true of not.

Are Christians persecuted in Israel? Are they significantly discriminated against eg as I understand Korean descent people are in Japan?

Another website which seem to support that there is at least strong discrimination is at: http://www.persecution.org/category/countries/middle-east/israel/

Should reference be made to this in this article? Even if there is "only" severe discrimination against them rather than persecution (or is that just a semantic difference)? dinghy (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends on your definition. Does discrimination include being the only Middle Eastern country where their population is growing? If so, I'd say yes.
Here's another tip - don't believe everything on YouTube or some website that anyone can publish. If you have reliable sources, bring it. --Jethro B 15:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do these articles always end up being lists/timelines?[edit]

Yes, per the heading, why? They are POV-magnets, they are usually almost impossible to read easily, their sources are often dubious both in reliability and in interpretation, they often attract warriors (there is one here, who has only recently edited the Pakistan section and has been deemed such at ANI), and the list element tends to overwhelm the more important issue such as "why does this happen" and "is the rationale behind it universal or differentiated"? - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Because that kind of format makes it easy to push POV with random crap.VolunteerMarek 20:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

POV[edit]

The article, particularly the "Current" section, is a typical POV WP:COATRACK of Muslim bashing. It includes instances not of persecution of Christians but just acts of violence by non-Christians against Christians. "Persecution" implies state participation, or at least a pretty high level of organization (so the actions of Taliban, for example, may qualify, if presented properly). Additionally it is/was based on advocacy sources. I've cleaned up the worst instances, including all the stuff that was not from "1989 to present", but there's still a good bit of it left.

Putting the tag back in.VolunteerMarek 16:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't watched this article closely lately, have you tried at all to trim the scope creep from the article and met with resistance/disagreement? KillerChihuahua 16:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I have, but there's so much of it that I simply don't have time to clean it all up. Hopefully I can do it bit by bit and when I'm done I'll happily remove the tag.VolunteerMarek 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Works for me, but try to not let the tag languish too long. I'll try to pitch in later when I have the bandwidth. KillerChihuahua 17:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it is also important to notice a persecution in many country without a state participation. When there is attacks against people because they are christians, I think we can speak of persecution, don't we?--Luc Ab. (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The corresponding article Islamophobic incidents lists numerous instances of non-state violence, and Religious persecution does not indicate that violence must be perpetrated by a state to be considered persecution. I'll check this article for overt anti-islamism, but scope-wise this is a non-problem. -- LWG talk 19:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that sourcing issues may also be present, and I will look into that as well. -- LWG talk 19:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Note #2: As no one here is actually disputing anything, the POV tag is not needed. I've replaced it with tags that reflect the actual issues with the article. -- LWG talk 19:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I have just browsed the article, and checked more in-depth the subject I know better here: Spain, 2nd Republic and Civil War. I have to say what I read is an appalling disgrace, no trace is made of the events and just loose events and figures are cited with no tracking of the sequence of events that can help explain or shed some light on what the circumstances were. Additionally, the use of catch-all terms like Christian - non-Christian just may hide more complex circumstances, like Church officials at the service of big landowners (who had often seized lands belonging to the people back in the 18th, 19th century or early 20th century). Very sad article, I have to say the tag at the top is well justified until problems like this are addressed. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Persecution of Christians[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Persecution of Christians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kairos":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Source 14 and its application to the article.[edit]

Allowing one misinterpretation of a primary source to be used as a source itself in the article only continues the error. The context of Tertullian's statement re martyrdom nowhere indicates a suicidal pursuit of death. Rather, it reflects the gospel source, Luke's letter, that a Christian must take up his instrument of death willingly in order to follow Christ. To include a "quote" that Jesus was suicidal actually shows the author's own biased conclusion; it is found nowhere in any primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B027:FE6A:2568:CFC6:6DD1:A953 (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Lloyd deMause' article is an essay, not a research paper, reflecting his own bias, and should not be used as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.198.43 (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Mormons[edit]

I realize that this has been discussed before, but an editors' attempted remarks in the article, raises the question again. Mormons consider themselves Christians. No other Christian denomination agrees with that statement, however. For articles primarily about LDS, we let the statement stand and contradict it somewhere in the article. Here, where other denominations are included, I would appear that LDS should not be mentioned. It should be a separate article (which it is).

The alternative is to allow the material, then say that other Christians do not recognize LDS as Christians. Because this latter statement is very nearly off-WP:TOPIC and distracts from the main article, it probably shouldn't be in here. But it would have to be, if LDS is allowed. Student7 (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that qualifying statement doesn't have to be included; the LDS Church is recognised as a form of Christianity within the academic religious studies field. Debates on the parameters, dimensions, and limits to that that relationship belongs on Mormonism and Christianity, not here. At most we could include a {{seealso|Mormonism and Christianity}} template below the existing {{Main|Anti-Mormonism}} template in the Anti-Mormonism section. Asterisk*Splat 17:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources are Rubbish? Edit War[edit]

I have tracked a user here who seems to have taken up to edit warring across numerous MEastern articles. Yet I see no discussion on the Talk page. If the sources are rubbish then here is what to do, cuz two editors object vs 1. Take it out and do a RS check. either way agree on the Talk page. WP:EDITWARRING I cannot stand people who have a track record of pushing only there arguments yet being very ill informed on how to use the WP:TALK and just throw random policy around regardless of if it makes sense. Per WIkipedia RS just having a source does not merit inclusion!!!!!!!!! Even if it is CNN--Inayity (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Israeli News is certainly not appearing to be a good source. Muslims in Judea and Samaria murder Christians, torture them and abduct their women with the connivance of the PA's secret police, an expert says. This is clearly not a NPOV source and its clearly a problem so the objection stands. Do a RS check if you have a problem.--Inayity (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:RS depends on context. A Facebook post from a RS expert is RS with proper attribution, likewise international human rights lawyer Justus Reid Weiner from the Hebrew University. For example, take a look at Criticism of the Israeli government and you will see many attributed claims are sourced with propaganda websites like Counterpunch. In addition, as far as I'm concerned, there is no blanket ban on linking to Israel National News, just like there is no blanket on Al Jazeera (plenty used in Wikipedia). Feel free to take it to RSN if you want that changed. In any case, content is also supported by CBN News and Jonathan Schanzer from the Hudson Institute. Sources are not "rubbish" at all. If you must, try to balance the paragraph, change language, add a sourced counterargument in the article. Do something creative instead of deleting the work of others all the time.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
So even when reverted by 3 editors you persist. Please report me and let me know when you do. I am not interested right now in Counterpunch, what I am interested in is a respect for Wikiepdia TALk PAGE and your habit of WP:EDITWARRING, right or wrong mean absolutely nothing when we start editing by violating the basic principles of Wikipedia. You always seem to be right, even when making no sense and having no one support you. Had I not seen your behavior across Wikipedia this incident would still need this revert. Because You MUst Stop! between the edit war not one editor (which includes the others) used the talk page. When you lose your power to bully edit, and violate wikipedia policy you also lose your voice. You seem to like making up stuff and throwing policy around but I have seen you have a poor understanding of editing with others. Yes you must balance the section, but that does not mean hostile sources should be added, people have objected respect that objection. Once reverted once, STOP--Inayity (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
yawn... I've used the talk page and addressed your objections against the given sources. Do you have anything to say about the points I just made above? If you don't, I'll restore the sourced content in 24 hours.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
So you have just again proven you are only hear to edit war, Openingly admitting intention to edit war. to win by any means. As long as you are right. Let me clarify my objection. 3 editors object to your edits. The burden is on you to prove they are RS. And you still have to deal with Wiki pillars over everything you have written. You might be right, they might be right, but guess what the burden is on you. Use the RS tools to solicit the opinions of other editors and open up the debate. Work is included based on merit, not because advocates added it and source it. Good luck in 24 hours.--Inayity (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You are the only one making senseless edit-warring. Unlike you, I did made use of Wikipedia's policy, rules and pillars to explain my position. I already explained above why the given sources are reliable. Do you have anything to say about the points I made or you simply justify deleting content "because other editors (apparently) agree with me"? Guess what? Wikipedia is not a democracy. Three editors may be wrong and one may be right. So far I haven't read a single argument to refute the points I made explaining why those sources are reliable and can be used, except for I don't like it... buaaa buaaa. Nothing stated above actually constitutes a counter-position to my explanation. Per Wikipedia standards it is not a counter-rationale to the points made. As long as nobody rejects my arguments with logical counter-arguments, I'll keep reinserting the content. Capiche?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Across your profile is nothing but edit war, that is how we meet. A discussion is going on and what do you do? You revert all the work to clean up the article by 3 editors. But you are right, everyone else must submit to what you agree. You read policy and ignore the pillars. The talk page is the place for discussion yet you go ahead and revert to what you like with your rationale while a discussion is in progress. Again, you are right, the discussion that went prior to you means nothing. So 2 editors vs 1 new editor, you are right we who editting for over a year are wrong. Keep it up. I been here for over 7 years. --Inayity (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Why I reverted Palestinian content[edit]

Starting with these first statement: The Palestinian Authority is encouraging a "sharp demographic shift" in Bethlehem, where the Christian population went from a 60 percent majority in 1990 to a 40 percent minority in 2000, to about 15 percent of the city's total population today. You see that thing I just put in BOLD? It is using Wikipedia voice and violating NPOV. It is taking sides with a disputed statement. So the Zionist voice is Wikipedia's voice. WP:NPOV issue.

The editor who is clearly politically motivated is accusing other editors of WP:IDONTLIKE but that also applies with even more force to you.
It is estimated that, for the past seven years, more than one thousand Christians have been emigrating from the Bethlehem area annually and that only 10,000 to 13,000 Christians remain in the city. -- So what, people been leave America for Israel what does it mean?-- it is posited there to SYNTH two different items.

And when something is written with this tone, then do not ask someone to respect it because you have two biased sources. Write in NPOV first. Because what are you here to do, make better articles or push politics? b/c a pattern is emerging and beware of WP:ADVOCACY. --Inayity (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, since you have focused on writing arguments instead of spitting only ad-hominem attacks, I'll try to balance the paragraph, but I'm not willing to accept an entire blanking of a section supported by three different sources just because you think there isn't enough attribution for one sentence. I'm glad you don't object the fact that sources aren't "rubbish" per my first explanation (otherwise you would've addressed the points I made). Salam Aleikum--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Well Shalom to you since we are being friendly why dont you go ahead and re-write it. And when you are re-writing it please add some balance. That would cause less suspicion regarding your motives here. And since it is a controversial edit, why not consider using more NPOV sources, then you make the point without causing the aforementioned issue. --Inayity (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
How do you suggest we balance the paragraph? And please don't tell me "destroy it". As I explained you before, section is supported by three reliable sources (do you want to know why they are reliable? read my first comment on this talk page, don't make me "copy-past"), although there might be a lack of attribution in the first sentence (regarding statistics) as you mentioned. Are you willing to reach a compromise?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Let us start with balance and then get to the sources. Because if it is balanced or written without that horrible bias, the sources are less important. What caused the issue was imbalance. I am not in Palestine, so I want to know the truth, if one source makes an accusation surly there must be a response to that accusation. Is it True? I honestly would like to know. Have Human rights commented on it? Have neutral monitors discussed this issue. Had you used HRW I would never object.--Inayity (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you tell me what would you add or how would you rewrite the information? You mentioned the lack of attribution in the first sentence and I already told you I'll try to fix that. What else do you think is written in an imbalanced manner?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
We already agree with the first line, So go for it. and take it from there. You re-write it I will not delete it. Start by changing it from Wikipedia voices to "According to..." or something like that.--Inayity (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. I'd like this section had the same attribution and scrutiny, but let's go step-by-step.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Now that tone is fixed, I have tagged the section for balance, to warn contributing editors that the issue of balancing a sea of negativity is pending. I hope other editors will accept the inclusion and challenge it without deleting it, balance it where it is needed.--Inayity (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
U are correct, but I was dealing with a big headache and at least needed to get agreement that the tone of the section was 100% a reason why people would want to revert. I did mention before the sources were a problem.. --Inayity (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources about the Palestinian territories[edit]

In light of Roscelese's "appealing arguments" ("rubbish", "ludicrous nonsense"), I'll explain again why the cited sources are reliable in this case:

WP:RS depends on context. A Facebook post from a RS expert is RS with proper attribution, likewise international human rights lawyer Justus Reid Weiner from the Hebrew University. For example, take a look at Criticism of the Israeli government and you will see many attributed claims are sourced with propaganda websites like Counterpunch. In addition, as far as I'm concerned, there is no blanket ban on linking to Israel National News, just like there is no blanket on Al Jazeera (plenty used in Wikipedia). Feel free to take it to RSN if you want that changed. In any case, content is also supported by CBN News and Jonathan Schanzer from the Hudson Institute.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

INN, CBN, and Hudson are not reliable sources. You must find real sources. If you cannot source this to real sources, it suggests that it is not verifiable. (WP:VRoscelese (talkcontribs) 14:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You didn't address any of the points above. I explained you why the sources are plenty reliable in this context. If you refuse to get the point and keep saying that INN, Justus Reid Weiner, CBN, and Hudson with proper attribution are unreliable (while keeping CounterPunch in this article or Electronic Intifada in this article doesn't seem to bother you) then stop wasting my time. You are clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policy, while maintaining a double standard.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Double Standard? You might be the last person on Wiki that should talk about that. It was a consensus on this page just between you and me, while everyone else was uninvolved. But on another page 3 editors vs 1 you, was NOT a consensus. Flexible policy. But I would just say that we must still dismiss legally why they are not RS. I am just saying this to be fair and not hypocrictical. If something is not an RS we must still appease the editor and explain to him/her WHY they are not RS in this instance while other biased ref are considered RS (like Electronic Intifada).--Inayity (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
They do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and indeed have a stated commitment to promoting a particular point of view that often overrides their commitment to facts. WP discussions are constantly finding these sources to be low-quality. If you feel that bad sources are used elsewhere, that's a reason to suggest removing them, not adding more bad sources! –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You fail to understand the main point. Justus Reid Weiner is a major authority on this and the appearance of his testimony on a source you don't like (specifically an Israeli newspaper, much more reliable than EI by the way) does not invalidate him. All those three sources can be used, because they are properly attributed. INN, CBN News and Hudson ARE indeed acceptable sources, there's no blanket on them (if you disagree, take it to RSN). And even if they are not reliable to state facts, they can be used to reflect the attributed opinion of scholars and related people on the subject. Reliability depends on context. A Facebook post from a RS expert is RS with correct attribution. That's why the opinion of recognized intellectuals are present in many articles despite they are cited by propaganda websites like EI. This is not my opinion, it's core Wikipedia's policy. Ask any administrator.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
If Weiner is an authority, he should be able to get his views published in a reliable source. Editors at RSN are pointing out constantly that these sources are inferior, and the "just attribute as though it's an opinion" backdoor is not sufficient for statements of fact that you should be able to verify. Can you or can you not verify these claims? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can verify them by two newspapers and a recognized institute. Can you show me the RSN link where INN, CBN News and Hudson are forbidden as sources? It would be easier for me to believe you if you showed the same motivation to remove clear unreliable sources like those I quoted before in Criticism of the Israeli government and Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world#Opposition.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you think those sources are bad, don't add other bad sources to "balance" them; instead, make a case for their removal. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you didn't understand what I wrote. You didn't make an effort. Unlike you, I'm not disrupting anything. I believe these sources are valid, at least with proper attribution, and I'll restore them as soon as I can, because you haven't given any solid argument. Look, there's no official blanket on the sources. That's a FACT. If you think this shouldn't be the case, I invite you to RSN. In the meantime, you are not entitled to censor them. I'd like to know the opinion of an impartial administrator.
By the way, what you are doing reminds me of a little story:
The principal of a European university complains to a teacher that his Jewish students cheat on the exams. When the teacher reminds him that Christian students do exactly the same thing, the principal answers: "Why do you keep changing the subject? We are talking about the Jewish students now!"--Baatarsaikan (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Instead of expressing an intent to continue your edit war and complaining nonsensically about being censored, you should try to persuade the rest of us that these sources, widely considered unacceptable because of their poor reputation and bias, should be used here. Your accusation of antisemitism is a ludicrous nonsequitur. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have to convince you. There's no blanket on these sources. If you disagree, go to RSN.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually the burden might be on you for RS since you are meeting so many objections. What I would like to know is something so factual must be reported by sources with a less Zionist orientation. The level of hostility in some of those sources discredits them on the spot. And I think the editor is having trouble with one basic fundamental, Just because someone you like, or supports your POV has put something in print, DOES NOT merit inclusion in an article. Editors exercise their discretion.--Inayity (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
First of all, Zionism is not the swearword that some mohammedans are trying to make it to be. A Zionist is someone who supports the reestablishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, aka State of Israel's right to exist. And that includes a lot of decent people, including scholars and serious academics. Second, INN and CBN are recognized digital newspapers, no less reliable than Al Jazeera or Maan News, two Arab news sites widely cited in Wikipedia. The Hudson Institute is an American think tank. Third, I thought you agreed to include the sources with proper attribution... don't you?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
A lot of "decent people" supported slavery and the colonialism of Africa also. And the point stands, Pro-Zionism, like Pro-Aryan nation is race supremacy and that is my little violation of this talk page for the day. Last point, Zionism is used as a negative by many groups not only Muslims, namely Pan-Africanist. See Kwame Ture--Inayity (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Baatarsaikan, this is no place to make a point. I discussed the inclusion of Palestinian related information on Persecution of Muslims, not the right place for it. You were not participating on the debate, all of a sudden removed the whole section with no explanation or participation in the discussion. I did not oppose since that was my point (I did not check all the info removed by you though). However, your position comes across as WP:Point. I would not rely the sources you added in a second, they are second parties with a vested interest in discrediting an opposing faction (Hamas, Palestinians, etc.). Definitely no detail and sweeping statements like "talibanization", etc. make things all the worse. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)'
Per WP:RS#Biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."
Those sources are WP:RS, and as opinionated sources, they are given in-text attribution. None of the facts reported are inaccurate, although opinions of course are a matter of ... opinion. That's why the attribution.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

I've protected the page for a week to stop the edit-warring. If you can come to an agreement before then, I'll unlock the article sooner than that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for not blocking anyone. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in Spain[edit]

This section needs a whole review, it is based on second party vested sources with a direct involvement (the pope of the Roman Church), one of the most intransigent, fanatical sides in the Spanish Civil War, anti-diversity, anti-democratic, hanging onto ideological monopoly at the prospect of losing it, actively participating in politics, siding with the cacique big landowners and committing the most horrific crimes, like snatching babies to their mothers on account of their alleged "mental disease" of communism, or liberalism, republicanism, to mention but a few. This section is a total disgrace, needs an in-depth revision. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


This is a Wikipedia page about 'Persecution of Christians'. The two first paragraphs in 'Spain' are a shameful attempt to justify that persecution, burn of church and assassination of nuns, monks and priests: [The Second Republic proclaimed in 1931 attempted to establish a regime with a separation between State and Church as it had happened in France [...] as well as further political and ideological confrontation paved the way to the Spanish Civil War and a planned extermination conceived by the ultra-Catholic military coupists (July 1936).]

This is not an article about Spanish Civil War and it's origins. And if it were the case, those paragraphs are a very partial one.

I tried to delete the paragraph, but someone restored them.
You should know how WP works. With discussion not closed, you have reverted again is not a good idea. Furthermore, you have removed verified information (two whole paragraphs), thanks for engaging in constructive editing. Thirdly, I urge you to sign your comments, which you have not, and does not give a very good impression to be honest.
The information is perfect there in that it helps the reader understand key points relevant to the statements added, as well as contextualize the political dynamics Spain was immersed during the period, and the relevant agents involved. "To justify"... that is your POV and you can stretch out that all you want, please stick to maximum detail in excerpts that may come across as contentious. As I stated above, there was no "persecution of Christians" whatsoever, there were sporadic episodes of aggression against the clergy. In fact, being a laicist or atheist (homosexual, etc.) was reason enough to be persecuted or ostracized in a society that was totally controlled by the Church up to the 2nd Republic and partially so during the 2nd Republic. There were attacks against clergy and religious officials, yes, and images, inasmuch as they represented a perceived tyrannical power. Stick to constructive editing.
There is information in the second part of the section I do not agree with, but it is verified, so I left it there. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User Iñaki denies 'persecution of Christians', justifies what he calls 'episodes of aggression' and he is at charge of editing of this page dedicated to the memory of persecuted christians? I would like that a not-spanish-ultra-lefty could inspect this two offensive paragraphs. If not, I will ask you to be be consistent and add some of this paragraphs (http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/responses.htm) into Holocaust or Jewish persecution pages, just as Iñaki says, to 'understand y contextualize the political dynamics during the period'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.190.114 (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not reply to slogans or personal, ad-hominem messages. Do not ask me to add anything, add it yourself if it is relevant to the topic, accurate, reliable and makes the article better, do you understand? I requested above, adding a link to help you, to include your signature, you did not. If you do not have anything constructive to say, there is nothing I can do. However, I have started to know that tone, have you got by chance any another account? Iñaki LL (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Do add WP:INDENT for better following the thread. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

How many martyrs?[edit]

The article says without source: "Over 20,000 Christians are thought to have died [...] depending on the scholar quoted, from a high of almost 100,000 to a low of 10,000." But the main article Diocletianic_Persecution#Legacy says with source: 3000-3500 executed, maybe more. Gibbon says in "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" <2000 executed for their beliefs. 81.231.164.31 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that active persecution was a complete myth. Recent scholarly work, particularly by Candida Moss in The Myth of Persecution suggest that the whole thing could've been a propaganda campaign centered on demonizing the pagan Romans. There's no archeological evidence to directly support this theory, but a lot of the holes left by early Christian censorship indirectly support it.--2602:306:CFCA:B540:BCDE:B4E3:64BF:9F15 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Split persecution of specific denominations[edit]

Some of the latter describes persecution of some Christians by other Christians e.g. persecution of catholics and protestants during the reformation. However, I believe that this inappopriate material for this article, the Christians in this case not being persecuted for their Christianity but rather the specific denomination of Christianity. If there are no objections, I shall move all such material into separate articles such as Persecution of Catholics. Munci (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Otherwise confuses readers I would think. Student7 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
More or less done. I found nowhere to put material about Hussites and Cathars though. Maybe just link to the main articles for those? Munci (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Planned Nazi persecution, Church of England[edit]

William Shirer got a Nazi document showing a plan to dismantle the Church of England upon the conquest of the United Kingdom, and in view of Nazi atrocities elsewhere, such plans would almost certainly have been carried out. Church of England clergy would have been decimated as the Nazis had done with the Catholic Church in Poland for revenge and for political reasons.

Of course this persecution never happened. Does an aborted or prevented persecution of Christians count as persecution? It would of course fit in "Nazi persecution of Christians" if acceptable by Wikipedia standards.Pbrower2a (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No. A lot of "planned" persecution never occurs.
Remotely possible to use in some other article, such as an article on the planners themselves, if there is one. Student7 (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Tunisia[edit]

The text about Tunisia says « Since the Tunisian revolution of 2011, there has been religious violence consisting of Muslim attacks on Christians in Tunisia.(ref)Lawrence D. Jones (14 July 2012). "Tunisian Man Beheaded For Converting to Christianity". The Christian Post. (/ref) [unreliable source] ». But the link used is based on a youtube video but seems to be from the Middle East not North Africa.--Helmoony (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Persecution of Christians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Persecution of Christians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent Category addition[edit]

I've removed the recent problematic addition of the "Category:Persecution by atheists" from this article as inappropriate and unsupported by reliable sources. The category misleads our readers by implying that persecution was inflicted because the persecutors were atheists (people who do not believe in gods), which is nonsensical. Atheism has no goal, creed or mission; it is merely the absence of belief in deities. While reliable sources say there has been persecution by totalitarian dictators and regimes, and communist regimes, and anti-clerical movements, and some of these even maintained a stance of "state atheism", there is no causal relationship between atheism and persecution of religious individuals. We already have more appropriate and accurate categories for this kind of persecution: Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, Category:Anti-clericalism, Category:Persecution by communists, etc. Articles asserting causal persecution by a lack of belief have been deleted in the past. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Kampuchea, China, North Korea, Nationalist Albania, Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact Countries were state atheism governed by atheists and that officially promoted atheism. The Category:Persecution by atheists it is includes articles of violence or persecution carried out by atheists or atheist goverments against adherents of religions. Prevent people from freedom of worship and to impose on them that they are atheists or non-religious, burning and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept is persecuted (In the case of the oppressed was an atheist), then, is persecuted by the atheists.--Jobas (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You are correct that the religious were persecuted, and you are correct that some of those countries assumed a position of state atheism. But you are confusing the persecution conducted by communists and totalitarian dictators as "persecution by atheists", which is nonsensical. That makes as much sense as adding "Category: Persecution by people with black hair". According to the cited sources in this article, the persecution was propagated by the communists and fascists upon the religious (and religious institutions) because the regime didn't want to compete with religions for influence over the populace. Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods; there is no "persecution" component to it. The persecution comes from the communist regime and from totalitarian dictators. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The persecution was led by people who identified themselves as atheists, They were athiest outspoked, Their actions were an attempt to remove religions of these communities through the policy of persecuting the religions and their followers and by followers of imposing a policy of atheism, through the so-called atheistic countries. If not athiest then persecuted by whom? Christians?.--Jobas (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The persecution, according to the sources, were by the polity in control at the time. The people may have identified themselves as atheists, and males, and left-handed, and fond of bird-watching, but the persecution (and also the establishment of state-sponsored stance of atheism) was a product of the communist or fascist government. See the difference? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The source cited they imposing a policy of atheism in not peacful way, and the "The state recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people.", and forceful tactics to promote atheism. These acts it called persecution that done by self identified atheists, They ban on religion and they killed and tortured followers of different religions. And they tried to impose atheism in various ways on the population? What you called killing people for their faith and harassment them and an attempt to impose atheism officially in all ways? Persecuted? and by whom?--Jobas (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Where is the citation showing "persecution by atheists"? What you have described is persecution by communists, who also happened to be atheists. The "church" was considered the enemy of the state (not the enemy of atheists). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
impose atheism in various ways on the population from preventing worship and closing churches and torture people for practice it.? Were are taling about State atheism as states and goverments who run official policy of anti-clericalism and Anti-religious and its aim to and promoting state atheism.--Jobas (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Anti-clericalism and anti-religion. That's what I said in my initial comment. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Anti-clericalism and anti-religion policy which tried officially to promoted atheism from a state atheism governed by atheists and that officially promoted atheism. Which you keep ignore that fact, That they not only persecuted poeople who practice religions but also trying to impose on them atheism, and not even in peacful way. So these act are persecution from whom--Jobas (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
From the communists. Or from the fascists, in the case of North Korea. And what have I ignored? I don't understand your statement. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
From State atheism. State atheism is state that promoted atheism.--Jobas (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what it is you are saying. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That We have acts of Persecution that done by State atheism and by state that promoted atheism, and by leader who were self identified atheists.--Jobas (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
We have acts of Persecution that done by State atheism
No. You do not. You should read the sources again. Promoted state atheism? Sure. We some of the leaders atheists? Perhaps, but that doesn't matter. That's not why they persecuted anyone. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Anderson, John (1994). Religion, State and Politics in the Soviet Union and Successor States. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-521-46784-5. the USSR became the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion and its replacement with universal atheism. The USSR regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.--Jobas (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
What you calling trying to replace religion by atheism and confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, you will call it as peacfull makers? it is Persecution, Why? as part of these State atheism to remove religion from public and Promoted atheism.--Jobas (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that quote on page 3. Have you read WP:SYNTH yet? I am still waiting for a source which states "persecuted by atheists". So far all I'm seeing is religious persecution by communists or totalitarian regimes. I'm also having difficulty understanding some of what you are saying. I'll hold off on replying until you've provided a reliable source for this article which conveys specifically "persecuted by atheists". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It was also atheistic states, and dozen of sources can show that. The total number of victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million. You ignore the fact that these act were part of the atheist policies. as you can see in these sources: Religious Policy in the Soviet Union - Pagina 214, Soviet Union Since the Fall of Khrushchev - Pagina 178.--Jobas (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
"Atheist policies?" There is only one atheist policy: absence of belief in gods. All of the other policies you mentioned are policies of the totalitarian dictators and communist states, and aren't part of atheism. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that during the twentieth century, atheists in Western societies became more active and even militant and he wrote: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity", (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages".
Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge also instigated a purge of religion during the Cambodian Genocide, when all religious practices were forbidden and Buddhist monasteries were closed. (source: Encyclopædia Britannica Online - Cambodia History; accessed 10 November 2013),
Albania under Enver Hoxha became, in 1967, the first formally declared atheist state (source: Majeska, George P. (1976). "Religion and Atheism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, Review." The Slavic and East European Journal. 20(2). pp. 204–206.), Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania. and Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stated that "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people." (source: Elsie, R. (2000). A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology, and Folk Culture. New York: NYU Press. p. 18. ISBN 0-8147-2214-8.) In 1967, Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania; by year's end over two thousand religious buildings were closed or converted to other uses, and religious leaders were imprisoned and executed.
Atheist and anti-religious policies in the Soviet Union included numerous legislative acts, the outlawing of religious instruction in the schools, and the emergence of the League of Militant Atheis. (source: Richard Pipes; Russia under the Bolshevik Regime; The Harvill Press; 1994; pp. 339–340)
Many priests were killed and imprisoned in the Soviet Union. Thousands of churches were closed, some turned into temples of atheism. In 1925 the government founded the League of Militant Atheists (an atheistic and antireligious organization) to intensify the persecution. (soruce: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.494 )
After Mao, the Chinese Communist Party remains an atheist organization, and regulates, but does not completely forbid, the practice of religion in mainland China. (source: Rowan Callick; Party Time – Who Runs China and How; Black Inc; 2013; p.112), (source: "International Religious Freedom Report 2007 — China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)". U.S.Department of State. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-02.)
You still keep ignore sources, There been persecution that done by an atheist states, and atheist leaders. So you like or not that dose not changed facts of Persecution by atheist states and leaders.--Jobas (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Jobas. All of that is very interesting. But, have you located a reliable source which says people were "Persecuted by atheists", rather than at the hands of a communist regime or a totalitarian state? I don't see it in any of the sources you just mentioned. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Atheists don't close churches, arrest priests or outlaw religion -- blame for that oppression is on the dictators and the totalitarian states. The category template is misleading. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The name of category is Persecuted by atheists, It mean to include act of Persecution that done by atheist or self identified atheists, or atheist goverment and states, this not important what is the defination of Atheism for you or me, because it is not the place for that argue. The Category is about acts of Persecution that done by atheists, which I already provided reliable source about the Persecution acts, and the self identified atheists leaders as Pol Pot and Enver Hoxha and that these dictators and the ″totalitarian″ states were officaly atheist state (so how the Category don't fit here)‎. According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that during the twentieth century, atheists in Western societies became more active and even militant and he wrote: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity", (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages".
The Russian Orthodox Church, for centuries the strongest of all Orthodox Churches, was suppressed by Russia's atheists (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.494).
In 1999, the Communist Party launched a three-year drive to promote atheism in Tibet, saying intensifying propaganda on atheism is "especially important for Tibet because atheism plays an extremely important role in promoting economic construction, social advancement and socialist spiritual civilization in the region". (source: China announces "civilizing" atheism drive in Tibet; BBC; January 12, 1999)
I dont see in this source the word totalitarian, but i'm see atheists, don't till me now that Geoffrey Blainey is not reliable source.--Jobas (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
this not important what is the defination of Atheism for you or me --Jobas
It may not be important to you, but it is important for our readers. When you add the category "Persecution by atheists", you are telling our readers that there is persecution because of atheism, which is not true and is not reliably sourced. Hopefully you can understand that. Please let me know if you do not. A category which says "Persecution by XXX" means the persecution is because the subject is XXX. A category which says "Persecution of XXX" means the persecution happened because the subject is XXX. If you intended the category to mean something else, you will need to reword it.
Your Blainey quotes say three things. (1) Blainey says some ruthless leaders (he doesn't name who) in the Second World War were also atheist or secularist, and that is very likely, since there are billions of secularists and atheists in the world. (2) Blainey also says that Pol Pot and Mao were atheist and they also committed atrocities, which I think is also true. (3) Blainey says all religions, all ideologies, all civilizations can be the source of bad things, which is very probably true — but atheism isn't a "religion" or an "ideology" or a "civilization". Blainey does not say anyone was "persecuted by atheists". In fact, what Blainey was actually saying is that not all war and violence is promoted by Christianity, and he gives examples of non-Christians (Mao, Pol Pot) to support his point. You would know this if you read the sentence just before the ones you quoted on page 543.
Perhaps this quote about people like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, would be helpful to your understanding: "Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." The blame for that lies with "dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism", or totalitarianism, etc. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Pgs 315-316)
don't till me now that Geoffrey Blainey is not reliable source --Jobas
Anybody can be a reliable source, and any source can be deemed non-reliable or inaccurate, depending on the specific content being sourced. You'll have to be specific about what you would like to source to Blainey in a Wikipedia article. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
This category "Persecution by atheists", not category "Persecution because of atheism", The category is about act of persecution committed by atheists noting more nothing less, dozen of source include your Richard Dawkins, cited that there been act of persecution committed by atheists, the category dosen't argue the reason of the persecution. But still the soruces show that the Atheist states as Soviet and ect try to establish atheism throughout society by force and persecution, and creating atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists to help the goverment to promoted atheism. So how an atheist state and atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists who played role in persecution people of religion, and tried to force and promoted atheism dont fit under category "Persecution by atheists"
You asked that to show you source that there been acts of Persecution that done by atheists, I gave the source of Geoffrey Blainey, it was very clear, "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity" and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong″.
Well Richard Dawkins is not historian, Under the state atheism of the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism." (source: Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival, by Christopher Marsh, page 47. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011.) and (source: Inside Central Asia: A Political and Cultural History, by Dilip Hiro. Penguin, 2009.) which is an act of Persecution, This program included the overarching objective to establish not only a fundamentally materialistic conception of the universe, but to foster "direct and open criticism of the religious outlook" by means of establishing an "anti-religious trend" across the entire school. (source: Statement of Principles and Policy on Atheistic Education in Soviet Russia, translation from Russian, Stephen Schmidt, S.J., transcribed P. Legrand, page 3). --Jobas (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
When you add the category "Persecution by atheists", you are telling our readers that there is persecution because of atheism, which is not true and is not reliably sourced. Hopefully you can understand that. Please let me know if you do not. A category which says "Persecution by XXX" means the persecution is because the subject is XXX. A category which says "Persecution of XXX" means the persecution happened because the subject is XXX. If you intended the category to mean something else, you will need to reword it.
dozen of source include your Richard Dawkins, cited that there been act of persecution committed by atheists --Jobas
This is false. Please provide the exact citation for this. All I see are mentions of people who commited persecution, and who also happen to be atheists.
You asked that to show you source that there been acts of Persecution that done by atheists --Jobas
No, I did not. I asked you to show me reliable sources which convey "Persecution done by atheists", not persecution by people who also happen to be atheists, which would be an uninformative and misleading category.
there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism." --Jobas
That is a nonsensical statement; and I checked your source - it doesn't say that. Please read and understand the sources you cite.
Well Richard Dawkins is not historian... --Jobas
I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Please explain in more detail?
I would still like to see a reliable source which says "Persecution by atheists". Xenophrenic (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Even if it was in the name of a Communist ideology, but that ideology was explicitly atheistic? and who can deny that that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were influnced in their. Religious persecution by the Marxist–Leninist atheism which advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism?, So how "Persecution by atheists" don't fit here when they Persecuted people of regions and try to force on them atheism.--Jobas (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I will quote @LoveMonkey: said: ″ If it was though, then atheism would not be the end goal, since you can promote irreligion against one religion or against all and still not impose atheism. Again the end goal of this group was to establish atheism as the accepted belief of the state and to remove all other forms of belief. Their goal was not to establish irreligion as the belief of the state.″
and source do show that ther been act of religious persecution that Their goal was not to establish atheisim as the belief of the state by force.--Jobas (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you are saying here. You will quote who? Which paragraph is that in? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic appears to be saying the secular irreligious forces can not be theist and that all secular irreligious forces seek to establish that in and of its own end. However Persecution by atheists means the people doing the persecuting were atheists not irreligious secular theists. Hence the need for the distinction between people whom have irreligious goals but are say secular theists and people whom have irreligious goals but are atheists. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not what I'm saying. Please read what I said above (it's still there). Xenophrenic (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)